Failure to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt, Improper Section 313 Examination, and Doubtful Eyewitness: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murdering His Mother

“Incriminating Evidence Not Put to the Accused Under Section 313 CrPC Vitiates Trial”— Calcutta High Court, in a Division Bench judgment delivered by Justice Apurba Sinha Ray and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj, acquitted Srikanta Baskey, who had been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the alleged murder of his mother, Shantimoni Baskey.

The Court held that the conviction was unsustainable due to a combination of serious procedural violations, unproven recovery of the alleged murder weapon, doubtful sole eyewitness testimony, and, most critically, a defective examination under Section 313 of the CrPC that prejudiced the appellant’s right to a fair trial.

“The accused was materially prejudiced particularly when his alleged leading statement for recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was not brought on record… and the seizure list containing his signature was never put to him under Section 313 CrPC,” observed the Division Bench. [Para 20]

The appellant had been convicted under Section 302 IPC by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Purulia, on 9th October 2018, and sentenced to life imprisonment for allegedly murdering his mother with an axe (Kurul). The prosecution’s case was based almost exclusively on the sole testimony of PW1, a neighbour and claimed eyewitness, who allegedly saw the murder while washing utensils.

However, the High Court found the trial riddled with irregularities that rendered the conviction unsafe and legally untenable.

Sole Eyewitness Testimony Was Unreliable and Tainted by Prior Enmity

The High Court acknowledged that a conviction can rest on a single eyewitness if the testimony is credible. But it stressed that:

“To rely upon such evidence of a single witness, the court must be very circumspect and cautious to see that such deposition is free from blemishes and incongruities.” [Para 11]

The Bench observed that PW1 belonged to the same family whose member had allegedly murdered the husband of the deceased, and against whom the deceased had previously lodged a criminal complaint.

“A doubt is looming large over the mind of this court as to why the members of a family, one of whom was allegedly involved in the murder of the husband of the deceased, had taken so much enthusiasm in lodging and pursuing the present case.” [Para 11]

This history of enmity was not meaningfully addressed by the trial court.

Alleged Recovery of Weapon Fails the Test of Section 27 of the Evidence Act

The axe supposedly used in the murder was not recovered from the appellant’s premises, nor was the confessional statement leading to recovery exhibited or proven.

“The recovery of the axe as per the leading statement of the appellant has not been proved in accordance with law.” [Para 12]

Further, the weapon was not sent for forensic (FSL) examination, and the IO failed to testify that the recovery was based on any disclosure by the appellant.

“Neither the IO nor the witnesses deposed about the recovery being made in the presence of the accused. The most basic procedural requirements under Section 27 were not fulfilled.” [Paras 12–14]

Incriminating Evidence Not Put to the Accused in Section 313 CrPC Examination

Perhaps the most damaging procedural lapse was in the accused’s examination under Section 313 CrPC. The Court found it to be “cryptic and unsatisfactory”.

“Various documents such as the seizure list of axe (Kurul) containing the alleged signature of the accused were not brought to the notice of the appellant. Several exhibits were ignored altogether during questioning.” [Para 16]

Citing Naval Kishore Singh v. State of Bihar (2004) 7 SCC 502 and Tara Singh v. State, 1951 SCC 903, the Court reaffirmed:

“The whole object of Section 313 is to afford the accused a fair opportunity of explaining circumstances which appear against him. The questioning must therefore be fair and couched in a form which the accused can understand.” [Para 17]

“This was not done in the present case, causing serious prejudice.” [Para 20]

Absence of Forensic and Corroborative Evidence

The post-mortem report did not clarify whether the injuries were sufficient to cause death. Moreover, the doctor was not shown the weapon, and no blood analysis was done, rendering the link between weapon and injuries unproven.

“There is no definite opinion as to whether the injuries could have been caused by the seized weapon. The weapon was not shown to the doctor during trial to elicit expert opinion.” [Para 5]

Additionally, no female family members of the deceased were examined, leaving the case devoid of critical direct or circumstantial corroboration.

The Court summed up the case by stating: “The prosecution was unable to dispel the doubt as to why the complainant's family, with known past animosity, took so much interest in the case.” [Para 21]

It further held: “The recovery of the alleged weapon was not proved; the FSL report was not obtained; and the Section 313 examination was not done fairly. In such a case, the conviction cannot stand.” [Para 21]

The Court accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence dated 09.10.2018 and 10.10.2018, and directed that the appellant, who had languished in custody for more than seven years, be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case.

This judgment serves as a powerful reaffirmation of procedural fairness in criminal trials. It reasserts the constitutional principle that an accused must be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and that statutory protections like Section 313 CrPC are not empty formalities, but essential safeguards against miscarriage of justice.

The Calcutta High Court’s ruling not only vindicates an individual wrongfully imprisoned for years, but also serves as a clear caution to trial courts against hasty convictions based on unreliable evidence, procedural lapses, and prejudicial omissions.

Date of Decision: 02 July 2025